Isaiah 14:12 — Lucifer, or the Day Star?
Isaiah 14:12 has הילל בן שחר in the MT and lucifer in the Vg; the question is whether Lucifer is read as a name or as the morning-star image. The Hebrew line addresses a falling figure in a taunt aimed at the king of Babylon.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
No rationale note matches this crux. The displayed APB text renders the verse with Day Star, son of dawn and continues with fallen from heaven and cut down to the earth. The pericope's audit verdict is 'clean'. The record supplies no further explanation of the blind committee's wording at this verse.
The case for each reading.
If a name (Lucifer)
Reading A begins with the Vg, which has lucifer, glossed as light-bearer or morning star. That Latin word supplies the form later capitalized by tradition into a proper noun, so a reader encountering Lucifer may understand the verse through that later name-shaped usage. The wording can therefore make the figure seem less like a comparison and more like an identified person. The packet also specifies, however, that lucifer was Jerome's ordinary Latin word for the morning star and was lowercase. The case for A concerns the enduring force of the Latin wording and its later reception, not a claim that lucifer was a Hebrew name.
If an image (day star)
Reading B follows the MT's הילל בן שחר, glossed as shining one, son of dawn. Its note places the language in a taunt aimed at the king of Babylon and describes imagery of a morning star falling from the sky. The LXX likewise reads ὁ ἑωσφόρος, the dawn-bringer or morning star, and its note says that Greek renders an astronomical image rather than a personal name. The APB's Day Star, son of dawn preserves that image in English. On this presentation, the phrase functions as vivid falling-from-heaven language within the taunt, rather than as a Hebrew proper name.
The packet identifies a difference between a Latin term later treated as a name and Hebrew and Greek morning-star imagery. It does not settle how later tradition should frame the figure. This variant changes whether Lucifer is read as a name or an image; it does not by itself decide doctrine. Doctrines rest on many passages.
Asked plainly.
Is Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12?
The Vg reads lucifer, a Latin word for light-bearer or morning star. The MT reads הילל בן שחר, and the LXX reads ὁ ἑωσφόρος. The packet describes the Latin word as lowercase in Jerome and later capitalized by tradition.
What does Isaiah 14:12 say in Hebrew?
The MT reads הילל בן שחר, glossed as shining one, son of dawn. Its witness note places the phrase in a taunt aimed at the king of Babylon, using morning-star imagery.
Why does one Bible say Day Star and another Lucifer?
Day Star reflects the morning-star imagery represented by the MT and LXX. Lucifer reflects the Vg's Latin lucifer, glossed as light-bearer or morning star; later tradition capitalized it into a proper noun.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.